Lockout

Lockout is the latest Luc Besson production (based on his own "original" idea) and he's got tired of having Liam Neeson beat people up and has returned to the world of sci-fi. He leaves the direction to relative newcomers Stephen St Leger and James Mather.

I say "original" because there is actually little original in the whole set up. The central premise - a rogue agent (Guy Pearce) is sent on a mission to a space prison in full revolt in order to rescue the president's daughter (Maggie Grace) - is basically Escape From New York in space. Once actually in the prison, the action becomes Die Hard in space with all the politcal conspiracy subplots of 24  in space, before a finale which just gives up and decides to be Star Wars and the attack on the Death Star.

Lockout is not a good film. It's stuffed full of cliches, far too many sub-plots for its own good and none of the action actually makes all that much sense - bits of dialogue seem inserted to make sense of what is about to happen, rather than relating to what has just happened which is what is ostensibly being discussed. And could somebody please explain to me why when people jump from a space station in space they fall? And why they don't burn up when they re-enter the atmosphere?

No, Lockout is not a good film, but it really quite enjoyable. (In other words it's a typical Luc Besson film). This is helped in no small part by a fantastically dry and sardonic turn by Guy Pearce who hogs most of the best lines, but also enjoys some good banter with a surprisingly unirritating Maggie Grace. Vincent Regan and Joseph Gilgun also add good value as the Scottish (of course) psychopaths who take over the prison.

Overall - 6.5/10 A true guilty pleasure - there's a lot wrong with this film, but it's still very enjoyable.

Salmond, the millionaires and the historian.

I was going to do a rant about Trump, but the guy kind of satirises himself with the likes of "I am the evidence" and so self-evidently deluded, what's the point of saying any more.

Instead I'm going to offer a few thoughts on the current woes of Alex Salmond. Usually the SNP spin machine is quite literally second to none in Scotland in terms of controlling and manipulating the stories. However, things haven't been running all their way in the last few weeks.

The Millionaires 

First there were the headlines about millionaire SNP donor Brian Soutar having bought Big Eck's recommendation for an honour with his donation. (Although a more interesting question, given the policy u-turn on bus regulation shortly after the donation, was whether he also bought their transport policy).

Then this week we have the twin barrels of Mr Murdoch and Mr Trump. Murdoch's advisor tells the Levenson enquiry into phone-hacking that basically Salmond offered to speak to Jeremy Hunt (who has his own heap of woes to deal with) whenever they (news international) needed him to. Then in wades Mr Trump with his claims of assurances offered to him that no wind farm would be built...

Now here's the thing, I don't trust Salmond, I certainly don't trust Murdoch and I my opinions of Trump are probably best not put in print, but his attempts to effectively blackmail a democratic institution are not welcome here! I'm also not altogether convinced I care who is the wrong or right here, it's a bit sordid whichever way you look at it. The things is that Salmond has gone out of his way to court support (financial or otherwise) from these millionaires and to play in the big boy's game. Maybe now he's realising the true cost of that.

The Historian

The other story that caught my attention was the "historian" David Starkey making comments comparing Salmond to Hitler. Now that's not really what I want to get into - comparisons to Hitler are always crass and hardly ever justified (certainly not in this case), but let's face it Starkey has never been shy about stirring up controversy for the purposes of promoting his own ego.

What interested me was the response from Salmond's office, which included the phrase that this was"an insult to Scotland and the people of Scotland". Er, no it wasn't! It was an insult (and a nasty one) to Salmond individually but not to Scots in general. This isn't the first time I've noticed Salmond and the SNP using this kind of rhetoric - and it's dangerous. A criticism or questioning of the SNP is not a criticism or questioning of Scotland, but too often they make it out to be. It's a habit that they need to break before the real independance debate begins otherwise any real debate on the merits or otherwise will be impossible if the response to any query is an accusation of anti-scottishness. All that will serve to do is enflame English-Scottish tensions and stifle real debate and that is a dangerous game to play!

The Cold Light of Day

There are some action films where you leave feeling that it would have been a decent film if only somebody had shot the cameraman early on in proceedings, or at least given him some tranquilisers. The Cold Light of Day is not one of those films for two reasons - (1) I doubt you'll get more than thirty minutes in without wishing something nasty before whoever is responsile for the unbearably shaky visuals on the screen and (2) even without the migraine-inducing camerawork this would still be a bad film.

Will (Henry Cavill) is on holiday with his family in Spain when he returns to their boat to find them missing. Going to the police seems to land him in more trouble, until his dad (Bruce Willis) turns up to sort things out, tell his son he's really a CIA agent and then promptly get shot, leaving Will to try and put all the pieces together, aided by some Spanish girl he picks up along the way who turns out not to be the romantic interest (thankfully, given one of the plot twists) and by this point I'd given up caring enough to bother with much more of a plot summary.

On the positive side - Henry Cavill shows some potential as at least watchable in the leading role, let's just hope Superman gives him more decent material to work with. And Sigourney Weaver makes for a badass villain at times. And that's about it. Bruce Willis looks like he can't really be bothered. There are so many continuity errors and nonsensical plot twists that you'll be continually scratching your head and going 'If they really are that, then why are they doing that? And more importantly, why should I care?'

Overall - 4.5/10 A good case study in how not to make a thriller, the most entertaining aspect of watching this film is spotting all the things wrong with it.

Mirror Mirror

Mirror Mirror  is the first of this year's two Snow White films to be released and is probably the most familiar looking for those harking back to the classic Disney version. The colours are vivid and visuals stunning.

All the familiar elements are there, although given a decidedly 21st century twist - so the seven dwarves are social outcasts turned bandits, it is Snow White who rescues the Prince from an enchantment with true love's kiss and so on. In fact this Snow is far more of an action heroine than the traditional Disney princess (although probably less so than Kristen Stewart's warrior maiden to be seen later this year in Snow White and the Huntsmen). That said, the "message" of Snow White discovering her true self/believing in herself feels very Disney.

And if all of that seems a bit too worthy, fear not. Director Tarsem has a track record of films that are very inventive, with lots of ideas and energy, but also a bit messy (see The Fall). Here he also throws into the mix bits that feel like they come from other legends, like the mysterious beast in the forest and an  interesting interpretation of the mirror, but on this occasion it really works for him and the film is a lot of fun to watch.

The dwarves, both individually and as a group, are great value and wonderful to watch. Lily "daughter of Phil" Collins does a decent job in the lead and Julia Roberts clearly enjoys getting to play the bad guy and does so with relish. However, the real revelation here is The Social Network's Armie Hammer who brings the physique of the romantic lead with the comic timing to make himself a bit ridiculous when required.

Overall - 7/10 A suitably modern twist which is genuinely fun and inventive.
 

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is the latest big screen adaptation from a successful series of teen-lit, but don't let that put you off. Unlike many, it's actually both an entertaining film and a genuinely cinematic one.

Whilst the plot has a definite debt to the likes of Battle Royale (outlying districts are each required to provide two youngsters each year to compete in a contest to the death for the entertainment of the rich capital) the setting also owes something to Metropolis in its distinction between rich and poor.

Our hero is Katniss (the excellent Jennifer Lawrence combining her steeliness from Winter's Bone with the action elements of some of her other roles) who volunteers in order to save her little sister. She's joined from her district by Josh Hutcherson (not bad but the weakest link in the film), who is secretly in love with her, whilst she has her own fellow back in the district. These emotional sub-plots remain just that - they add depth to the action, but unlike certain other teen franchises don't swamp it.

The action within the games remains firmly 12A certificate so as not to alienate the target audience as Katniss fights for survival against the specially trained volunteers from the richer districts. Meanwhile, outside the arena, we are shown the manouevring and conspiring to provide a spectacle whilst remaining in control. The adult cast is very strong with particularly good turns from Woody Harrelson as the drunken mentor to Lawrence and Hutchison and from Donald Sutherland as the cynically manipulative president.

At the end of the day the satiric points about violence as entertainment and the use of the media to enable to control, etc... are not very subtle, but crucially the story and the film are entertaining and thrilling enough to bear the load.

Overall - 8/10 What it may lack in originality it makes up for in being so well done throughout that it still feels fresh. A genuinely good film.

Delicacy

Delicacy is the latest "quirky" French film starring Audrey Tautou. She plays Nathalie, who we see in the opening 10 minutes meet, fall in love with and marry the love of her life, Francois. Then he's killed in a road accident whilst out jogging and Nathalie starts to lose her way. Unfortnately so does the film.

It starts with the heavy-handed voice-over at the funeral - "what if I freeze this moment and wall myself up in my grief". We're about to be shown her doing this for the next half an hour, we don't need her spelling it out for us. Then the film can't really decide what it wants to be. It's been marketed as a sort of rom-com and it has elements of that as Nathalie years later rediscovers love through the affections of the unlikely Marcus (Francois Damiens). And the film has moments of humour and moments where it tries to touch on the deep emotions involved both for Nathalie overcoming her grief and for Marcus overcoming his shy clumsiness. However, the moments when it successfully manages to merge these into a coherent film are few and far between.

The main problem seems to be with Damiens' character and how the film treats him. Damiens was the comic-relief sidekick to Romain Duris in Heartbreaker and was great at it. The problem is that the directors here seem to want him now to be both comic relief and romantic lead, which is a very difficult balance to find and they miss it by quite a margin  by going for a humour that is too broad and makes Marcus look too ridiculous for them to then be able to find pathos in the character when it is required. Part of the point of the film seems to be an encouragement to look deeper than the surface awkwardness and lack of looks, but that is kind of undermined when we are also asked to laugh repeatedly at just that awkwardness.

Still, the film has some good moments and Tautou is as watchable as ever, although we've seen her do this role many times before.

Overall - 5.5/10 It has some funny moments and some moments of feeling, but all too few moments when they combine successfully.
 

Edinburgh Council Elections Hustings

Purely for information purposes, these are the hustings that I'm aware of for the City Council elections over the coming weeks:

19th April 19.00 - 21.30  Spurtle, St mary's church, Bellevue Crescent, Leith Walk Ward.

19th April 19.00 - 21.00  Edinburgh City RC Justice and Peace Group, St Mary's Metropolitan Cathedral Hall, 

19th April 19.00 - 21.00 Active Citizenship, City Chambers

19th April 19.00 - 21.30 Craigmillar Question Time, Hays Business Centre

19th April 19.00 - 21.30 Muirhouse, Muirhouse Millennium Centre, Muirhouse Medway

19th April 19.30 - 21.30 Craigleith/Blackhall CC, Large Hall, Blackhall St Columba's Church 

19th April 19.30 - 21.30 Almond, Cramond Kirk Millennium Hall 


23rd April 19.30-21.30 Murrayfield Community Council and Murrayfield Parish Church, Murrayfield Parish Church.
  
24th April 19.30-22.00 Drylaw & Telford Community Council, Drylaw Neighbourhood Centre

25th April 19.00-21.30 Broughton Spurtle City Centre Hustings, St Mary’s Parish Church, Bellvue Crescent

25th April 19.00 - 21.30 Portobello Hustings, Portobello Town Hall

 26th April 18.00-20.00 Unison Hustings, Augustine Church, George IV Bridge

26th April 18.00-20.30 Forth Hustings, Royston Wardieburn Community Centre

27th April 17.30pm EUSA (Edinburgh Uni Students), Teviot Study, Bristo Square 

If anyone knows of any others please let me know and I'll add them.

21 Jump Street

Have a few film reviews to catch up with here. So, starting with 21 Jump Street, the latest in the conveyor-belt of big-screen adaptations from long past TV series. To be honest, I don't remember the series being that much of a thing in the UK, but it did lauch the career of a certain Johnny Depp.

As is tranditional in these adaptations, it features the obligatory cameo by the star of the TV series - although in this case it is one of the highlights of the film and wins extra marks for having Depp on the screen for some time before you realise it's actually him.

The film as a whole keeps the central idea of cops going undercover in High School and then just tries to have a laugh with it. The humour varies hugely from some quite witty and "meta" cleverness about reviving old programmes from the 80s and passing them off as new to appear clever. Most of it however is very broad humour (at times going way too far), however it is done with such an endless enthusiasm and energy that it will probably get you laughing for at least some of the running time. It's just that afterwards you might feel a bit embarasssed about laughing at it.

Channing Tatum proves a surprisingly reliable comic hand as one of the cops, whilst Jonah Hill is on less irritating than usual form as his partner. However, it's Ice Cube as the angry black lieutenant ("embrace your stereotypes") who comes close to stealing the whole film.

Overall - 6/10  Done with lots of energy and enthusiasm and the odd moment of inspiration. It's a bit hit and miss, but could be worse.
 

Some thoughts on the upcoming elections for Edinburgh City Council

It's nearly the start of May, which means it getting close to election time!

In Edinburgh this year, this means we get to vote for the wonderful city council. Now many people might feel that after the debacle over the trams last year, when it took the intervention of Holyrood to stop the muppets coming up with the most crazy solutions possible to a calamity largely of their own making, that none of them deserve to get back in and I would have some sympathy with that view.

Actually there are some decent councillors in all parties. Unfortunately there are also some complete numpties and in party politics, unlike in a bottle of milk, the cream doesn't always rise to the top.

What are they standing for?

This is a completely biased and firmly tongue in cheek view of what the various parties will do if elected, gathered from the various bits of paper they have so far put through my letter box (and the ones that I have put through other people's on behalf of the Greens).

SNP - are very proud of their council tax freeze and reducing council spending (that's what's known as cuts when the evil coalition do it at a national level). They're also very proud of taking absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for anything unpopular or cack-handed that the current (LD-SNP) administration has done - and there sure are a lot of them.
Conservatives  - seem to be very unhappy and very concerned about any number of different things. (Well, let's face it, as Tories in Scotland they have a lot to be unhappy and concerned about).
The Lib-Dems - seem to be very proud of lots of roadworks and holes in the ground and buiding sites- their leaflet featured at least 4 photos of such. Given the current state of Edinburgh this seems like a curious electoral strategy, but maybe they can see the writing on the wall and it's all just an elaborate electoral suicide note.
Labour -  have yet to give me a leaflet - odd as they actually do have a councillor for this ward. But I do know that they, in contrast to the LDs, are promising no more holes in the ground, ever, even if they're desperately needed. Oh, and they're hoping that you will have forgotten that they were in power up until 2007 and helped to contribute to the mess that the current lot have made such a mess of sorting out.


And nobody, but nobody is mentioning the Trams.

Being equally biased, but less tongue in cheek, the Greens are standing for promoting renewables and energy efficiency on a community level, safer cycle routes, protecting local businesses, giving local communities more say over how money is spent in their areas through initiatives such as £eith Decides and protecting the city's green spaces, amongst other things. I could go on, but you can read more here if you're interested.

So what's likely to happen?

One thing we can say for sure is that no party will have outright control of the council for the simple reason that no party is fielding enough candidates to take outright control.
The LD vote is likely to crash as it did last may and in the City Cenre by-election in August (when they lost almost two-thirds of their vote share). They recognise this - only fielding 1 candidate per ward and effectively giving up two seats before a vote has been cast. Many of the sitting councillors are not re-standing.
The SNP will probably gain seats, but maybe not do as spectacularly well as last May.
Labour should also be looking to pick up seats - 2007 was not a good year for them. But they should have been looking to make gains last year as well and look how that worked out for them.
Having looked into it, I'd hazard a guess that the post-election council chamber may look something like this:
SNP 19 (+7)
Lab 18 (+3)
Con 11 (no change)
LD 6 (-11)
Grn 4 (+1)
Although I'm hopeful and cautiously optimistic that there may be a few more Greens than that.

Now, according to the unwritten rules of Scottish politics, nobody wants to work with the Tories. The SNP group leader, the delightful Steve Cardownie, seems to be doing his best to alienate all possible coalition partners and even if an agreement could be reached for a traffic light coalition (red-orange-green) they may not have the seats for a majority.

Now, a minority administration might not be a bad thing, it could force a lot of issue-by-issue negotiation which could bring creative solutions to Edinburgh's many problems. It would require skill and delicacy in handling though, neither of which are qualities the various party leaders in Edinburgh seem to possess in much abundance. Which leads me to: 

An passionate plea to voters in Forth ward:
If you are thinking of voting SNP, give the guy who's not Cardownie your 1st preference and then put your ballot in the box without a 2nd thought. Edinburgh will be always in your debt.

Meadows/Morningside - a 2nd preference dilemma.

We all know who's going to get my first preference and I'm fairly confident that the Green candidate here, Melanie Main, will get in and do a great job as councillor. However, I'm not sure how to then express my other preferences. I have a choice of 6 other candidates: Conservative, Lib-Dem, UKIP, SNP, Labour and Pirate. It may all well be academic as Melanie may not be elected until the 3rd or 4th councillor for the ward, in which case the vote transfers will matter little, but just in case...

Normally my second choice would be Lib-Dem, but their candidate is now council leader Jenny Dawe, moving here from her previous ward as she was going to be outperformed there by her party colleague and lose her seat. I just cannot bring myself to express any preference for her at all. Similarly, I could never express any preference for UKIP except in a straight choice between them and the far right.

The conservative councillor actually seems to have done a decent job, but is probably the most likely to be elected first without the need for transfers. Besides which, I don't like what the party stands for and I'm proud of my record of never having voted for them (even a second preference). The same record applies to Labour and their councillor seems to have been rather anonymous in this part of the ward from what I've seen apart from failing to get elected as an MSP last year.

The SNP are not a party I'm overly fond of at the moment either and they've certainly contributed to the mess of the current council, but their candidate quite impressed me when he stood for Westminster in 2010.

So, I'm thinking:
1. Green (of course)
2. Pirate (as I may never have another chance to vote for a Pirate)
3. SNP (on the off-chance the final seat will come down to either them or the LDs).

UPDATE  - I've now had a leaflet from Labour and am none the wiser what they're standing for.

The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists.

Pirates! marks Aardman's first claymation film since 2005's Wallace and Gromit outing, following the luke-warm success of their digital animation efforts (Flushed Away and Arthur Christmas, both of which were rather enjoyable and underrated IMHO). But this is Aardman back on their own territory and back on great form.

There is something very British about the whole effort - from small visual gags including a Blue Peter badge to the overall silly and anarchic sense of humour that owes at least some of its comic DNA to the likes of Monty Python (the illustrated map journeys are at least somewhat reminiscent of Terry Gilliam's illustrated interludes).

There's also much here to love - from the character names that part inspired, part lazy (Pirate Captain, Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate, Pirate with Gout) to the visuals that feels both homemade and impressive at the same time to the more clever and subtle gags about Darwin's theory of evolution. There are moments of genius in the mix - like the monkey who speaks through the medium of speech cards.

The voice cast is strong (Brendan Gleeson, Martin Freeman, Imelda Staunton, David Tennant) but special praise should go to an almost unrecognisable Hugh Grant who brings something special to the Pirate Captain.

Overall - 8.5/10 The whole film is filled with such an inventive and exuberant sense of fun that it will keep you laughing right through the closing credits.